LaFrance Indian Country Evaluation Article

8/12/2019 LaFrance Indian Country Evaluation Article

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lafrance-indian-country-evaluation-article 1/12

Culturally competent evaluation in Indian Countryrequires an understanding of the rich diversity of tribal

peoples and the importance of self-determination and

sovereignty. If an evaluation can be embedded within anindigenous framework, it is more responsive to tribalethics and values. An indigenous orientation to evaluationsuggests methodological approaches, a partnershipbetween the evaluator and the program, and reciprocity.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION, no. 102, Summer 2004 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 39

3

Culturally Competent Evaluation inIndian Country

Joan LaFrance

Given the rich tapestry of tribal cultures in the United States, it is presump-tuous to assume that any evaluator, whether an Alaskan Native or a memberof an American Indian tribe (or a non-Indian), can understand the culture of every group. Rather than trying to master multiple cultural specificities, thegoal of a competent evaluator, especially in Indian Country, should be toactively seek cultural grounding through the ongoing processes of appreci-ating the role of tribal sovereignty, seeking knowledge of the particular com-munity, building relationships, and reflecting on methodological practices.This article is an opportunity for discourse and reflection on these many lev-els. It discusses the importance of understanding the implications of sover-eignty when working in Indian Country, the significance of an emerging

indigenous framework for evaluation, Indian self-determination in setting theresearch and evaluation agenda, and finally particular methodologicalapproaches I find useful in my evaluation practice.

For this discussion, I use the term Indian Country to describe the col-lection of tribal nations and Alaskan native communities that occupy ashared homeland and live in culturally bounded communities. The termindigenous refers to the first native residents of lands that have been takenover by outsider populations—specifically, Indian tribes and AlaskanNatives in North and South America, and the Pacific.

An early draft of sections of this chapter was presented at the AEA annual meeting in2001. The chapter also draws from contributions to “Promoting Culturally Reliable andValid Evaluation Practice,” a chapter to appear in an edition of Evaluation and Societythat I coauthored with Sharon Nelson-Barber, Elise Trumbull, and Sofia Aburto of WestEd.



40 IN SEARCH OF CULTURAL COMPETENCE IN EVALUATION

Understanding Sovereignty

Few Americans fully appreciate the political status of American Indians

and Alaskan Natives. In Indian Country, sovereignty expresses recogni-tion of and respect for tribal governance and nationhood. Treaties betweentribes and the United States established a unique federal-tribal relation-ship. This relationship is also recognized in numerous executive ordersand acts of Congress. Programs operating on Indian reservations operatewithin a civil structure unfamiliar to most Americans. Tribes are govern-mental units separate from state and local governments. In many tribes,the governing bodies include a general council, composed of all tribal cit-izens age eighteen and above, and an elected business council, which is

usually called the tribal council. Other tribes have more traditional formsof governments based on historical leadership patterns. Recent federal lawshave encouraged tribal self-determination and self-governance. As a result,many tribes now operate their own educational, health, and welfare pro-grams through funding relationships with the federal government.

More than thirty years ago, a well-known husband-and-wife anthropol-ogist team noted that their profession had studied American Indians morethan any other group in the world (Swisher, 1993). This intensive scrutinyfrom the outside has been problematic to many American Indian people,

whose tribes and families have suffered from a long history of intrusive stud-ies that have built the reputations of anthropologists and other researchersbut brought little more than loss of cultural ownership and exploitation toIndian people. The research studies often depicted Indians in a naïve or neg-ative light. Trimble’s review (1977) of articles on Indian educational researchfound that most of the literature concentrated on problems centered aroundthe investigator’s interest, and not those of the tribal people from whom thedata were obtained. Because evaluation draws on methods of anthropology,among other social sciences, evaluation in Indian Country may suffer from

a similar legacy. With the growing emphasis on self-determination, it is not surprising

that some tribal governments are establishing formal processes to protectthemselves from the abuses of research. Although program evaluation issomewhat different in that it seeks to understand and contribute to pro-grams within the context of the community, the collective tribal historywith research has contributed to a general distrust of outsiders who cometo study, ask questions, and publish their findings (Crazy Bull, 1997).Evaluators need to learn whether official approval is needed to conduct theevaluation, and evaluators must be sensitive to particular tribal processesinvolved in working with research committees. Tribal sovereignty also fuelsconcern about access to data and uses of evaluation information. Sincetribes are continuously engaged in struggles to protect their rights, they arehesitant to have evaluation findings reflect negatively on the social, eco-nomic, or political goals of the community.



CULTURALLY COMPETENT EVALUATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY 41

Because tribal governments are much smaller than local and state gov-ernments, programs operating under tribal authority are much more closelyconnected to local political structures than are most other publicly funded

programs. As a result, programs operating under tribal governing structurestend to be more susceptible to social and political forces at work in a com-munity. As such, they have a greater obligation to be responsive to commu-nity priorities and concerns. Evaluation can make an important contributionto developing responsive and effective programs in tribal communities. Thechallenges for culturally competent evaluators in Indian Country are to movepast ingrained reticence toward research and instead actively engage the keystakeholders in creating the knowledge needed to deliver effective services.

Evaluation can become even more responsive to tribal programs if it

is couched within indigenous “ways of knowing” and knowledge creation.The National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded a project of theAmerican Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) to develop an“indigenous framework” for evaluation. The framework will guide a train-ing curriculum for educators in Indian Country. AIHEC is undertaking thiswork because more Indian communities are developing and implementingnew strategies for improving the educational attainment of their youth thatdraw from traditional values and culture. In so doing, it is urgent to estab-lish new evaluation processes that are broad enough to accommodate and

value different ways of knowing, build ownership and a sense of commu-nity within groups of Indian educators, and efficiently contribute to de-velopment of high-quality and sustainable Indian and Alaskan native edu-cation programs. Building an indigenous evaluation framework willcontribute to the national evaluation discourse through inclusion of indige-nous epistemologies—ways of knowing—that are not typically included instandard Western evaluation models. By supporting incorporation of indigenous epistemologies into Western evaluation practice, the field willbe more responsive to the educational interventions that are using tradi-

tional and cultural approaches.

The Case for an Indigenous Evaluation Framework

In her discussion of decolonializing research in indigenous communities,Smith (1999) advocates the importance of creating designs that ensurevalidity and reliability by being based on community values and indige-nous ways of knowing. Deloria (1999) argues that there is a need to makea concerted effort to gather traditional tribal wisdom into a coherent bodyof knowledge: “I believe firmly that tribal ways represent a complete andlogical alternative to Western science. If tribal wisdom is to be seen as avalid intellectual discipline, it will be because it can be articulated ina wide variety of expository forms and not simply in the language and con-cepts that tribal elders have always used” (p. 66). Garroutte (2003) arguesthat indigenous ways of knowing can find a place in the academy only if




those with access to the academy make it a safe place for indigenousknowledge. Evaluation is a good candidate for building this bridge.Though based on Western research models, evaluation, as Weiss (1998)

notes, is a practical craft; evaluators engage in the craft to contribute toprogram quality. With their nod toward practicality, evaluators can takeliberties to explore cultural epistemologies that differ from those taught inthe academy if such exploration contributes to the validity and usefulnessof evaluation in the context of program operations. Those evaluators whobelong to the academy should also be able to bring the fruits of theirexplorations into the academic discourse. Consequently, evaluators wholearn how to practice in a culturally competent framework have the poten-tial for changing not only the field of evaluation but also conversations on

knowledge creation, its components, and its ramifications. For this reason,I would like to share some of our emerging thoughts about an indigenousframework for evaluation.

Elements in an Indigenous Framework

There is a growing discussion among indigenous scientists and evalua-tion experts about native or indigenous approaches to knowledge gener-ation that are in contrast to Western ways of knowing. At a recent AEA

conference, Hayley Govina (2002) described how her Maori valuesrequired that in her culture “evidence” must be “trust-based” and growout of mutual understanding and relationship. She contrasted this Maori“valued knowledge” approach with a Western research model that is “evi-dence based” and capable of selecting out factors and looking at them inisolation. At the same AEA conference, Andrea Johnston (2002)described how Western evaluation logic models are linear and interestedin isolated domains such as indicators or factors. In her Ojibwe world,knowledge is holistic, and the focus is on how the spheres (of factors)

overlap to produce growth. In his book on native science, Greg Cajete(2000) contrasts the opposing cosmologies of Western culture, where aGod is apart from the earth and man is given dominion over the materialworld, and the indigenous belief that man comes from the earth and allelements of the world are equal. In his work, Cajete defines models,causality, interpretation, and explanation in ways that go beyond objec-tive measurement but honor the importance of direct experience, inter-connectedness, relationship, holism, and value.

Indigenous knowledge values holistic thinking (Cajete, 2000;Christensen, 2002), which contrasts with the linear and hierarchical think-ing that characterizes much of Western evaluation practice. Cajete alsodescribes the profound “sense of place” woven throughout native thought.This strong connection to place, location, and community is in sharp con-trast to modern American values of mobility and individualization—valuesthat often define “success” in contemporary America.



Cajete further describes how Indian people experience nature as partof themselves and themselves as part of nature, adding that “this is the ulti-mate form of being ‘indigenous’ and forms the basis for a fully internalized

bonding with that place” (p. 187). Although history of contact withEuropeans has altered indigenous connections to their original lands, thesense of place is still a deeply held value. Despite their outward appearanceof poverty and limited development, reservations are cherished homelands.Tribes invest energy and resources to regain lost land and develop oppor-tunities on the reservations. For many programs operating on reservations,an important criterion of success is their contribution to the larger tribalgoals of restoration and preservation.

Indian tribes also possess a strong sense of community. This is found in

many tribal languages, in which the name for the tribe translates into Englishas “the people,” as is the case for the Dené (Navajo), or the Anishinabe(Chippewa or Ojibwe) “spontaneously created people. Original tribal namesdistinguished the uniqueness of the group in relation to the rest of theworld” (Deloria, 1994). Maintenance of the tribal community is an impor-tant criterion of successful programs and services in Indian Country.

Christensen (2002) describes the values of an elder epistemology, not-ing that “with its emphasis on oral skills it is an important intellectual con-struct, yet it is neither practiced nor even deemed relevant in the academic

community” (p. 5). Drawing from the example of elder teaching, Christensendescribes the role of respect, reciprocity, and relationship. In practice thesethree R’s suggest an approach to evaluation that understands the tribal con-text, contributes knowledge and builds capacity in the community, and ispracticed by evaluators who value building strong relationships with thoseinvolved in the evaluation. Elder teaching is based on a democratic value of give and take, equality, and participation. Smith (1999) reinforces this ethicof respect: “From the indigenous perspectives ethical codes of conduct servepartly the same purpose as the protocols which govern our relationships with

each other and with the environment. The term ‘respect’ is consistently usedby indigenous peoples to underscore the significance of our relationships andhumanity. Through respect the place of everyone and everything in the uni-verse is kept in balance and harmony” (p. 120).

Smith also describes an indigenous research agenda in which the verynaming of the research agenda denotes self-determination. She writes,“What researchers may call methodology, for example, Maori researchersin New Zealand call Kaupapa Maori research or Maori-centered research.Such naming accords indigenous values, attitudes and practices a privi-leged, central position rather than obscuring them under Westernizedlabels such as ‘collaborative research’” (p. 125). This suggests that asindigenous people move into evaluating their programs, they take chargeof their own agenda; name their own evaluation processes; and use themethodologies that fit within their framing of place, community, values,and culture.




Reflections on Evaluation Methodology

In a country that values mobility, competitiveness, and progress, the Indian

values for preservation, continuity, and community seem somewhat out of place. Yet it is these more conservative values that underlie many of the pro-grams and projects that are subject to outside evaluations. Failure to under-stand such values, or imposing more mainstream assumptions upon thedefinitions of successful outcomes, results in evaluations that fail to con-tribute to tribal goals and program expectations. Understanding the impor-tance of the values and the elements emerging in the indigenous framing of evaluation, as well as my experience doing evaluation in Indian Country,suggests a number of methodological considerations: the importance of

formative evaluation, the value of building conceptual models, the impor-tance of participatory processes and building evaluation capacity, issues inusing qualitative and quantitative methods, and challenges in doing com-parative research.

Importance of Formative Evaluation. The more conservative valuesof preservation and restoration operating on Indian reservations suggest thattribal programs need to be evaluated within their own context. The majorevaluation questions become formative and tribe-specific (“How can weimprove our service delivery?” or “What have we learned from this program

or project?”). The view is inward; questions that imply comparison withpopulations outside the tribal community are less relevant to a communitythat is focused on its own growth and development. I found this to be truewhen researching evaluation issues in tribal schools in the 1980s. Reactingto a national evaluation driven by political forces in Congress against thetribal movement to control their own schools, the Senate commissioned astudy of tribally controlled schools. The study specifically requested thatthese schools be matched with public schools serving students on the samereservation that also had a tribal school. The schools were compared on

achievement, attendance, and per-pupil costs. Although the study failed toyield much of value for the political forces driving it, it definitely was notuseful for administrators and staff in tribal schools. My research (LaFrance,1990) found that the evaluation interests of tribal school personnel centeredon “within school” concerns. They were interested in students doing wellover their time in the school and whether they were developing a goodsense of self-esteem. They wanted to know if the curriculum was meetingits objectives. They did value learning how their school compared to oth-ers; however, this question was of secondary importance and one thatwould not drive policy decisions.

To ensure sharing formative knowledge, I have arranged to regularlydebrief program directors regarding initial evaluation findings. Since tribalinstitutions are small, the director or principal investigator is often the sin-gle person coping with delivery of social services or educational programs.Unlike administrators who work in larger institutions, she does not have




colleagues with whom to share concerns or learn about resources. Regularevaluation debriefings bring to her another person to whom she can talkabout the issues encountered in operating the project. The evaluator

becomes a resource for testing ideas or seeking advice. Although this mightstep outside the boundaries of evaluation, it is an important value-addedcontribution in resource-strapped communities (LaFrance, 2002b).

Building the Conceptual Picture. Given the inward orientation andthe importance of understanding the assumptions and values driving pro-grams operating on Indian reservations, I find it useful to work with stake-holders to articulate a theory of change (Weiss, 1998) prior to developingthe evaluation plan. This is done in a facilitated workshop. The first objec-tive of the workshop is to explicate the underlying assumptions guiding the

program. All of the workshop participants have an opportunity to discusswhat they do. Since everyone has tasks and activities, all are equallyincluded in the discussion. Once activities are mapped out, the workshopparticipants are asked what will change as a result of the activities, or whattheir assumptions for change are. This is a much deeper question and leadsto a healthy discussion among program staff about their beliefs, values, andhopes for the program.

The second objective for the workshop participants is to identify themajor information they need to collect to find out whether their assump-

tions are correct. The information from the workshop is used to design anevaluation plan that is responsive to the program’s values and assumptions.This approach results in a conceptual model for the program that may ormay not look like the traditional logic model. In fact, I never use the termlogic model since it connotes an intellectualism that can come across as elit-ist, mysterious, and Western. This is not to argue that conceptualizing theprogram is not important. In fact, it is essential to good evaluation design.However, the model should fit the program and the stakeholders’ way of seeing the program. Traditional logic modeling formats might be too

sequential and narrative-driven and not appropriate ways to capture theconnections between program activities and underlying assumptions inIndian Country.

Participatory Practice and Capacity Building. A third objective of the workshop is to establish a participatory ethic for the evaluation. Staff and other stakeholders should participate in developing their evaluation. Ina setting that values community, participatory processes are recommended.Also, as a result of building a theory of change together, I become a partnerin an evaluation process that is owned by the program staff and stakehold-ers. The partnership builds relationships between program operations andthe evaluation—between the program staff and the evaluator. This approachfits in the emerging indigenous framework because it demonstrates that theevaluation is respectful of the vision of the program held by its primarystakeholders and establishes relationship in executing the evaluation—twoof Christensen’s three R’s (2002).





Given the high value tribal communities place on sovereignty and self-determination, it is recommended that evaluators look for opportunities tobuild evaluation capacity whenever possible. Using a participatory work-

shop to build the program’s conceptual model and evaluation plan demys-tifies the process of evaluation and builds ownership in the evaluation.Other opportunities for building capacity should be explored. Many tribessponsor their own community colleges, and this may be a way to build eval-uation training capacity for budding evaluators from Indian Country. In oneof my projects, which involved a large community survey, I was able towork with college students who were interning with the tribal office duringthe summer. They assisted in recruiting focus group participants, develop-ing questions for the survey, and administering the survey at community

events and meetings. Although these opportunities might be rare, a respon-sive evaluator should be aware that they are possible and try to incorporateas much training as possible in the evaluation plan.

Issues in Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Given thehighly contextual nature of tribal programs (operating in their sense of placeand community), qualitative methods are central to the work. This is not tosay that quantitative inquiry is not valued; rather, tribal communities havesimply not found it a useful way to assess merit. Tribal populations in theprograms being evaluated are often not large enough to put faith in statis-

tical models; as a result statistical analysis is usually limited to descriptivesummaries. Experimental design is generally discouraged, for ethical andpractical reasons. It is difficult to assign adults or children into different“treatment groups” in small communities. Even if this could be done, thesocial and political reaction to a perception of unequal treatment could bequite disruptive in a small and fragile community.

Confidentiality is an important concern in both qualitative and quan-titative approaches. When working in small communities, evaluators haveto continually sort out information that does not protect the confidentiality

of the respondent. When we asked a group of evaluators with experience inIndian Country to identify challenges in doing evaluation in tribal commu-nities, one evaluator noted that her dilemma concerned how disposition of data influences accessibility to participants. She found that fear of reper-cussions if identity were figured out from responses to ethnographic inquiryor survey answers can discourage participation or response rate (Greenman,e-mail communication, 2003).

Furthermore, instrumentation can be problematic, especially when thefunders require standardized measures. Another evaluator responded to ourrequest for challenges by noting that she was being required to use a one-hundred-page intake form that was proving impossible to administer. When she undertook a cultural core measures search, she found few cul-turally validated measures for American Indians (Kumpfer, e-mail com-munication, 2003) and none that she could use. Most previously developedinstruments need to be reviewed and often revised to fit the context of an



Indian reservation or community. Survey questionnaires have to be devel-oped to fit the general education level in the community, which is oftenlower than in mainstream communities. It is important to test items on a

cross-section of the community, because advisory committees often havea higher level of education or literacy than the general population.Trimble (1977) describes an effort to measure self-esteem of Indian

adults. The Association of American Indian Social Workers, sponsors of thesurvey, formed an advisory board to guide development of the instrument.Their goal was to develop a standardized instrument that could be used byIndians who were members of various tribes. He noted that there were cul-turally based objections to creating one instrument that would work acrossthe diversity of tribal nations. However, a core of the advisory committee

did not want to abandon the idea of using one instrument. The compromisewas an instrument that included open-ended and sentence-completionitems to capture personal expression.

The ethics of evaluation require informed consent of those being inter-viewed. However, special care should be taken when interviewing acrosscultures. In my summary of conversation among Indian evaluators attend-ing a conference sponsored by NSF, I share Christensen’s concern that el-ders often think that everything they say will be reported, and they do notunderstand that in a final document only certain quotes often represent

their interview. Christensen argues that informed consent is “making surethat the evaluators comprehend what you are saying, and that you under-stand and consent to how what you are saying will be used” (LaFrance,2002a, p. 67).

Challenges in Doing Comparative Research. Varying tribal histories,locations, resources, and size make it difficult to draw conclusions acrosstribal communities. Case studies and qualitative approaches that embed theprogram within the context of the community are generally more effectivethan quantitative studies that seek comparison across communities or

groups of tribal people. However, summative evaluation is often informedthrough comparison. So how do you find comparison groups? Obviously itdepends on the service or program under consideration, but here are a fewsuggestions:

Using retrospective measures. This method allows participants to assess theirown changes on the basis of personal perspectives. This approach is goodwhen a premeasure instrument might be intrusive or intimidating to pro-gram participants.

Comparing tribal statistics with national data. Many national surveys containdata disaggregated by ethnicity. In some programs, the data on Indianscontained in these data banks might be usefully compared to tribal dataon the same measures.

Finding a comparison reservation community that is willing to act as a “con-trol group.” However, if this method is used, it is important to negotiate




an understanding with the partner reservation so they are comfortablewith the use of the evaluation findings.

General Advice to Evaluators. One of the guiding questions for thisvolume is, “How does better understanding of the role of culture improveevaluation practice?” Understanding the influence of tribal culture andcontext is critical when conducting evaluations in Indian communities.The goals of social services and educational programs are often twofold:help the individual student or client, and attempt to strengthen the com-munity’s health and well-being. Given this dual set of goals, indicators of success might not correspond to the dominant society’s focus on individ-ual achievement. These same values influence how tribal people view the

role of researchers. Crazy Bull (1997) described these values in her adviceto researchers who come into Indian Country: “We, as tribal people, wantresearch and scholarship that preserves, maintains, and restores our tradi-tions and cultural practices. We want to restore our homelands; revitalizeour traditional religious practices; regain our health; and cultivate our eco-nomic, social, and governing systems. Our research can help us maintainour sovereignty and preserve our nationhood” (p. 17).

To ground the evaluation in the tribal community, a culturallyresponsive evaluator should learn as much as possible about its history,

resources, governance, and composition. If possible, he or she shouldengage in community activities such as graduation ceremonies and din-ners for the elders in the tribe, or funerals for honored tribal members.Engagement can also involve attending special events such as a Treaty Daycelebration, powwow or tribal dance, rodeo or canoe journey. This par-ticipation can help the evaluator understand the context in which he orshe is working. It also allows Indians in the community to build relation-ships with evaluators that are based on friendliness and respectful inter-est, rather than defined by strict roles and outsider “expertise.” In fact,

expertise in the form of education, degrees of higher learning, or profes-sional reputation is of little value in Indian Country if the communitydoes not see the evaluator as respectful and capable of understanding anindigenous perspective.

Building a strong partnership between the stakeholders and the evalu-ator and being willing to relinquish some of the power embedded in being“the evaluator” challenges long-held assumptions that an evaluator is to beimpartial and distant from the program’s operations. These assumptions arebased on the need for objectivity in research and evaluation. However, part-nership with the program being evaluated or with the community who arerecipients of the program services does not imply that an evaluator loses theability to remain objective. There is always some level of subjectivity influ-encing an evaluator’s approach to her trade. This subjectivity is conditionedby the training and orientation (quantitative, qualitative, feminist, empiri-cist, critical, and so on) of the evaluator.




Evaluation methods that are responsive to community values and con-texts are still objective in application if the evaluator and the program’s stake-holders value learning from the evaluation. Situating evaluation methodology

within an indigenous framework should result in creating this sense of own-ership. Once ownership is created, the stakeholders value the knowledgethey can gain from the evaluation—and evaluation is all about creatingknowledge. When the stakeholders own knowledge creation, the evaluatorcan discuss negative findings (failure to accomplish goals, assumptions thatappear to be incorrect) as well as positive findings. The knowledge becomesempowering, and evaluation is not viewed as merely a judgmental activityimposed by funding agencies or other outsiders.

By making the process of knowledge creation transparent and partici-

patory, the evaluator builds evaluation capacity in tribal communities. It hasbeen gratifying to be asked to review rough drafts of proposals in communi-ties where I have conducted evaluations and see that they have includedsophisticated evaluation designs using such terms as theory of change, matri-ces of evaluation questions, and data collection plans. It is also satisfying for anevaluator to become accepted and welcomed, not just for her trade but alsoas a friend and colleague in working toward the aspirations and sovereigntyof the tribe. If the tools of the evaluator are used to fulfill the goals and aspi-rations of tribal peoples, then the evaluator has given back to the commu-

nity, and not just come in to assess, monitor, and judge. She and thecommunity have a sense of reciprocity—the final R in Christensen’s modelof elder epistemology.

References

Cajete, G. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, N.M.: Clear Light,2000.

Christensen, R. “Cultural Context and Evaluation: A Balance of Form and Function.” In

Workshop Proceedings of the Cultural Context of Educational Evaluation: A Native American Perspective. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation, Apr. 2002.

Crazy Bull, C. “A Native Conversation About Research and Scholarship.” Tribal College Journal, 1997, 9, 17–23.

Deloria, V. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum, 1994.Deloria, V. “Ethnoscience and Indian Realities. In B. Deloria, K. Foehner, and S. Scinta

(eds.), Spirit and Reason: The Vine Deloria Reader. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum, 1999.Garroutte, E. M. Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 2003.Govina, H. “Treaties and Traditions: Cultural Competencies in New Zealand Evaluation

Design and Practice.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEvaluation Association, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2002.

Johnston, A. “Building Capacity: Ensuring Evaluation Findings Contribute to ProgramGrowth.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EvaluationAssociation, Washington, D.C., 2002.

LaFrance, J. “Redefining American Indian Education: Evaluation Issues in TriballyControlled Schools.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1990.

LaFrance, J. “Networking: How to Develop a Line of Communications.” In Workshop




Proceedings of the Cultural Context of Educational Evaluation: A Native AmericanPerspective. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation, 2002a.

LaFrance, J. “The Role of an External Evaluator at a Small Tribal College.” Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Washington,

D.C., 2002b.Smith, L. T. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed

Books, 1999.Swisher, K. G. “From Passive to Active: Research in Indian Country.” Tribal College

Journal, 1993, 4(3), 4–5.Trimble, J. E. “The Sojourner in the American Indian Community: Methodological

Issues and Concerns.” Journal of Social Issues, 1977, 33(4), 159–174. Weiss, C. H. Evaluation. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998.

J OAN L AFRANCE is an independent evaluator and the owner of MekinakConsulting based in Seattle, Washington, specializing in working with AmericanIndian and Alaska Native tribes and organizations.


Documents

LaFrance Indian Country Evaluation Article